New Samson & Delilah set in modern Gaza

  • Thread starter Thread starter signerror
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Set
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around a controversial production at the Flanders Opera that reinterprets a classical work by Shostakovich, leading to accusations of promoting anti-Semitism. A heated exchange occurred between a businessman and the opera's general director, where the director suggested that if the situation for Jews in Belgium was as precarious as claimed, they should consider leaving. This remark sparked significant debate about its implications and the broader context of anti-Semitism in Belgium. Participants argue over the interpretation of the director's comments, with some asserting that he was dismissive of genuine concerns about anti-Semitism, while others defend him by emphasizing the conditional nature of his statement. The conversation reflects deep tensions regarding the intersection of art, politics, and societal attitudes toward Jewish communities in Belgium.
signerror
Messages
175
Reaction score
3
Nowhere near this, but it looks it sounds dramatic...

In Belgium, Samson Gets a Makeover
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/arts/music/07abroad.html?hp

The Shostakovich reference, for those who aren't familiar with his (brilliant) music, is about his artistic subversion of Stalin in his (often satirically dark) music. He was alternately both glorified and banned by the Soviets, who didn't get it! Very much a mixer of politics and music.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitri_Shostakovich

Photo of the directors:

http://www.vlaamseopera.be/en/persondocumentdetail.orb?doc=6412&pgclr=armygreen#

http://www.vlaamseopera.be/en/persondocumentdetail.orb?doc=6412&pgclr=armygreen#
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
signerror said:
Nowhere near this, but it looks it sounds dramatic...

In Belgium, Samson Gets a Makeover
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/arts/music/07abroad.html?hp

You haven't quoted anything from that link, so let's get a flavour of the Flanders Opera’s general director's attitude to anti-semitism from this extract …
Red faced, spewing insults and standing nose to nose with the Flanders Opera’s general director, the businessman predicted the production would stir up anti-Semitism, which festers just below the surface here, he said, to which the flustered impresario blurted out that if the situation for Jews were really so precarious here, they should leave.

Oy.

The general director has decided to take a classical work by Shostakovich and change it so as to give an excuse for showing Israeli soldiers humiliating Palestinians and repeatedly shooting a Palestinian child, and then dancing "orgiastically with their phallic rifles". :frown:

And for his finale he suggested that Jews should leave Belgium.​

Anti-semitism is alive and well, and living in Flemish Opera. :smile:
 
Saint-Saens, not Shostakovich. Shostakovich is brought up by the NYT writers as a similar instance of art mixing with politics.
 
tiny-tim said:
And for his finale he suggested that Jews should leave Belgium.​
Unlikely, don't you think, considering he is a Jew himself? Perhaps, he only suggested that those that can't handle the heat might want to step outside the kitchen.
 
Gokul43201 said:
Unlikely, don't you think, considering he is a Jew himself?

Unlikely, but it happened. :frown:
Perhaps, he only suggested that those that can't handle the heat might want to step outside the kitchen.

whatever do you mean by that? that somehow Jews are doing something unnecessary just by living in Belgium? :confused:

erm :redface: … let's not depart from reality …

he actually suggested:
that if the situation for Jews were really so precarious here, they should leave

(this was in reply to a comment that:
the production would stir up anti-Semitism, which festers just below the surface here
so clearly "here" means Antwerp or Belgium generally)
 
tiny-tim said:
Unlikely, but it happened. :frown:
No, it didn't. He did not make an absolute statement; he made a conditional statement (not one I agree with either). The fact that he hasn't left means he doesn't believe the condition (namely that things are really "so" precarious) has been met.

Moreover, we are working from something that's a recollection rather than a direct quote. And the person doing the recalling is also presumably Jewish.

whatever do you mean by that? that somehow Jews are doing something unnecessary just by living in Belgium?
What I meant by that can have nothing to do with my opinion, since I was merely attempting to interpret Cahn's opinion.
 
Gokul43201 said:
No, it didn't. He did not make an absolute statement; he made a conditional statement (not one I agree with either).

Yes … he made a conditional statement which he knew many Jews in the audience believed is true …
that if the situation for Jews were really so precarious here, they should leave
… he was suggesting that the Jews before him, and any other Jews in Antwerp who agreed with them, should leave. :frown:
Moreover, we are working from something that's a recollection rather than a direct quote. And the person doing the recalling is also presumably Jewish.

It's a "recollection" by a professional New York Times journalist, who presumably made notes either at the time or shortly afterwards, and who had attended with the specific intention of writing up the event. That's actually pretty reliable.

(for his last 1702 NYT articles, see http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refer...k/michael_kimmelman/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
Perhaps, he only suggested that those that can't handle the heat might want to step outside the kitchen.
whatever do you mean by that? that somehow Jews are doing something unnecessary just by living in Belgium?
What I meant by that can have nothing to do with my opinion, since I was merely attempting to interpret Cahn's opinion.

uhh? they're your words, not his …

if you were attempting to interpret Cahn's opinion, what did you mean by your words? :mad:

that Cahn thought that somehow Jews are doing something unnecessary just by living in Belgium?​
 
tiny-tim said:
And for his finale he suggested that Jews should leave Belgium.

You're talking about the "precarious" remark? Your interpretation is overblown. You can fairly criticize him for being dismissive in his remark, and if your description of the play is accurate you can criticize that,* but that's not *nearly* the same as suggesting that the "Jews should leave Belgium". It wasn't until I read Gokul43201's post that I considered you might be referring to that! I thought you meant that, separately, he had remarked that Jews should leave Belgium (which as far as I know hasn't happened).


* Actually I'm rather confused by this. If the play is as you describe (I wouldn't know, I haven't seen it), why would you remark on a relatively innocuous remark rather than the play itself? That sounds very bad.
 
CRGreathouse said:
* Actually I'm rather confused by this. If the play is as you describe (I wouldn't know, I haven't seen it), why would you remark on a relatively innocuous remark rather than the play itself? That sounds very bad.

uhh? :confused: The NYT journalist remarked on both the remark and the play itself

(as I made clear …
tiny-tim said:
The general director has decided to take a classical work by Shostakovich and change it so as to give an excuse for showing Israeli soldiers humiliating Palestinians and repeatedly shooting a Palestinian child, and then dancing "orgiastically with their phallic rifles". :frown:
)

… how is that not remarking on the play itself? :confused:
You're talking about the "precarious" remark? Your interpretation is overblown. … that's not *nearly* the same as suggesting that the "Jews should leave Belgium". …

the "precarious" quotation was …
that if the situation for Jews were really so precarious here, they should leave

how is that not suggesting that they should leave Belgium (or Antwerp)? :frown:
 
  • #10
tiny-tim said:
how is that not suggesting that they should leave Belgium (or Antwerp)? :frown:
Well, for one thing, you have no idea what the "so" in "so precarious" refers to, so all this speculation about a Jew telling Jews to leave the place that he's not leaving is just that - speculation.
 
  • #11
leaving Belgium

Gokul43201 said:
Well, for one thing, you have no idea what the "so" in "so precarious" refers to, so all this speculation about a Jew telling Jews to leave the place that he's not leaving is just that - speculation.

I'm not following you :confused: …

the "so" clearly refers to the http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/arts/music/07abroad.html?_r=1&hp" (my bold) …
the businessman predicted the production would stir up anti-Semitism, which festers just below the surface here, he said, to which the flustered impresario blurted out that if the situation for Jews were really so precarious here, they should leave.

where's the speculation?

the Flanders Opera’s general director (a Swiss) is aware that the person he's speaking to believes that anti-semitism festers just below the surface in Belgium (or maybe just Antwerp),

and when challenged that he (the general director) is making it worse, suggests that Jews who don't like it should leave. :frown:

how is that not suggesting that they should leave Belgium (or Antwerp)? :confused:​

Anti-semitism is alive and well, and living in Flemish Opera. :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12


tiny-tim said:
I'm not following you :confused: …
Fill in the blanks:

If you think the situation is so precarious that _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , then perhaps the Jews ought to leave.

Really, isn't this going overboard analyzing the recollection of a Jewish reporter who essentially admits the director deserved to have his lights punched out?

Oh, and one more little thing...
tiny-tim said:
and when challenged that he (the general director) is making it worse, suggests that Jews who don't like it should leave.
He never said anything about restricting the leaving to "Jews who don't like it" (whatever the "it" is).
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top